HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

****

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.608 OF 2010

Between:-

Shaik Mohammad Ibrahim. ...PETITIONER

AND

State of AP and others ...RESPONDENT

****

DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 27.03.2025

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2. Whether the copy of Judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No _________________________

Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J * THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO + CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.608 OF 2010 % 27.03.2025 # Between:

Shaik Mohammad Ibrahim. ...PETITIONER AND State of AP and others ...RESPONDENT ! Counsel for the Petitioners :V.Mallik ^ Counsel for the Respondent :P. Akhila Naidu, Assistant Public Prosecutor Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1) (2002) 6 SCC 650 2) AIR 1951 SC 196

3) AIR 1962 SC 1788 4) 2003 (12) SCC 406

5) 1978 (1) ALT 397

6) 1978 CrlJ 549

7) AIR 1979 SC 1360 8) 2000 (1) BLJR 37

9) AIR 1988 SCC 1789 10) 1996 CRI.L.J.2720

11) AIR 1999 SCC 1482 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 608/2010

ORDER:

Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) against the judgment dated 18.03.2010 in Crl.A.No.123 of 2009, on the file of the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Markapur, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for brevity ‘the Act’) vide judgment dated 21.08.2009 in C.C. No.158 of 2007, on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Markapur.

2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. Sri V. Mallik, the learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the grounds of the revision argued that in Ex.P7 label, there are no signatures of the petitioner, P.W.1 and the mediator; the evidence of the P.W.1 is not trustworthy; failure to see the explanation of P.W.1 with regard to the non- seizure of the records or invoice of the muster roll is not properly explained except saying that P.W.1 is not concerned with the said aspect; the visit of the P.W.1 is highly doubtful as he had not prepared any sketch of the scene of offence and noted physical marks of the scene in Ex.P9 while preparing the alleged panchanama; Ex.P1 was only a photocopy and an unattested one which ought not to have been relied upon; P.W.2 is only an indirect witness who had stated that he did not know about the inspection conducted by P.W.1; and urged to allow the revision case.

4. Alternatively, it is submitted that the inspection took place in the year 2004; nearly 21 years have passed by. The revision case was filed about 14 years ago; the petitioner was in jail for about 9 years; it is not the allegation that the product was adulterated, but it was only a misbranding of sans IBS Certification; right to speedy justice is the fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of India in favor of the petitioner is being violated and requested to impose the sentence which the petitioner had already undergone, by taking lenient view.

5. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, argued that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 disclosed that the petitioner had contravened the provisions of Sections 7 (2) and 2 (6) (k) of ‘the Act.,’ and it is punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (ii) of ‘the Act’; there was no misreading of evidence; no material irregularity was committed by the learned courts below; evidence of the witnesses cannot be re-appreciated at the stage of revision and urged to dismiss the revision case. However, with regard to the sentence that could be imposed on the petitioner, it is submitted that some lenience may be s